The report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing is enclosed.

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning, Building Control and Licensing regarding a City Council Development, the change of use of a former probation centre (Class E) to homeless shelter for up to 20 homeless people (sui generis).

The application related to the conversion of a vacant probation centre to a homeless shelter providing 20 bedrooms for single homeless people, incorporating communal living areas, staffroom, and parking.

Objections had been received from 92 local residents, together with 2 letters of support.

The main concerns raised related to the proximity of the proposed use to a neighbouring children’s day nursery and safeguarding issues; anti-social/criminal behaviour perceived to be generated by prospective residents; the use of the open space opposite and interaction with children; the impact to nearby property values and the provision of satisfactory operational arrangements, to ensure that the development does not harm the living conditions of nearby residential occupiers.

Consideration of this application was deferred by the Planning and Highways Committee on 14 February 2023 to enable a site visit to take place.

The Planning Officer noted that the site visit had taken place, looking at the relationship of the property to the day nursery next door, neighbouring residential properties, the open space opposite and the access to premises and car parking area.

The applicant addressed the Committee, noting that discussions had taken place with the nursery and neighbouring properties, which involved their management plan. Addresses in both the Woodhouse Park and Sharston Ward had been notified of the application. A drop-in session was held for Sharston residents to discuss their concerns. The engagement that the applicant had completed was aimed at informing residents why the development was necessary in Wythenshawe, given that there was a lack of temporary accommodation provision in South Manchester. The proposed site would be a good neighbour, with sufficient staffing levels to manage the site and provide a prompt response to any complaints. Anti-social behaviour would not be tolerated at the site.

A ward Councillor for Sharston addressed the Committee, requesting that they considered the existing communities and hear their concerns. Sharston residents had told them that they had received no communication regarding the development. They felt the property to not be suitable for this site. However, if approved, they requested that the homelessness team work closely with residents and ward Councillors if any issues did arise.

The Planning Officer noted that the applicant had discussed a detailed management plan and that included contact details to contact with complaints. Staff would be on site 24 hours a day and if there was a breach of the licence agreement signed by residents, they could be moved out of the site. A condition regarding CCTV and other security measures was to be agreed. The site had Class E, office use that provided no control to the Planning authority, whereas this permission would give control through the management plan and other conditions.

A member noted that they had noticed at the site visit that one neighbour was particularly close to the proposed site and questioned if a condition could be added for extra boundary work to act as an additional barrier to the site for neighbours.

The Planning officer accepted that there was a gap in the boundary treatment and that there was no reason a condition could not be added to look at this.

Councillor Andrews moved the Officer’s recommendation, with the additional condition relating to boundary work as proposed.

Councillor Lovecy seconded the proposal.

Decision

The Committee resolved to Approve the application for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in the officer’s report, together with an additional condition relating to landscaping works.

(Councillor Johnson declared an interest in this item and therefore vacated the room, taking no part in the discussion or vote)